Should police swoop on cyclists who ignore red lights? (ES poll)

[Tynan]

hiding cameras breaks the law, human rights

 

[Zoom]

There's a cycle / pedestrian crossing just before my work; you have to wait ages and ages and ages before it goes green as it's usually only automatically activated by a push button or a camera in the side road controlled by the same set (left turn only but cyclists can ride straight across into the park) which is hardly ever used. So I do the good thing and wait and wait to cross an often empty stretch of road. Of course 3 times out of 10 as soon as it actually goes red some B^%*&(*d driver goes through it! it's crying out for a camera but as the cyclists and peds are too smart to actually cross it without looking it doesn't have any accidents (which is apparently what determines which lights get cameras)

 

[spindrift]

I've stood and watched cops in The City ticket cyclists whilst cars RLJ willy nilly.

 

[tdr1nka]

I've stood and watched cops in The City ticket cyclists whilst cars RLJ willy nilly.

These drivers probably had a momentary lapse of consentration while overcome with the sheer excitment of seeing a cyclist being booked.

T x

 

[Cab]

Why don't you think it will make a difference?

Go read my posts. I've said why.

 

[CotterPin]

where I cycle the majority rlj

I was waiting at to cross Holloway road this morning with about seven cyclists and loads of traffic, long lights, come the bit where the ped lights to the left go green and it's safe to cross the huge junction, with cars waiting in all directions, five of the bikes set off, very very visible indeed

I really did cringe at the spectacle, especially as it only gave them a 15 odd second head start

I've slowly become a bit of a RLS fascist now, I make apoint of stopping at almost everything now, and I've started to scowl at those carrying on

Tynan,
I think I might do the same junction as you. Tollington Way/Holloway Road? I do a left here to go down Holloway Road.

You are right - there are a number of cyclists who roll through the red lights and like you I find it annoying. I do a "stern stare" although I don't think it comes out quite right.

However I can almost understand (although not condone) why they do it at this junction. Once you get over the Holloway Road you have the option to go straight ahead to Camden or bear left to Kings Cross. You should be in the correct lane before the lights but I have had many an occasion when cycling towards Camden of being cut up by a car that suddenly decides to switch lane and usually at speed.

Some of those people at that junction jump the lights because for them it works as a safe way of getting across that junction and not being cut up on the other side. Obviously others jump the lights here because they're mindless and stupid idiots.

However, those motorists are being equally mindless and stupid idiots and they are doing it in a potentially more lethal manner. But who does everyone notice behaving badly at this junction? The cyclists. So who gets all the flak? The cyclists.

As I said I don't condone rljers, and I don't do it myself. But I equally do not condone the dangerous and illegal behaviour of motorists which can have more lethal consequences but which somehow seems to go unobserved.

 

[Tynan]

yep cotter, that's the one and I don't agree with that justification, they'll be the same people that jumped all the earlier lights, I get into the right lane as early as necessary, easy, christ knows what goes through the mind of the people that start on the left and cross the lane to get onto the Camden Road, see that every day and it's dangerous and relies on the drivers' goodwill, riders like that shouldn't do junctions like that

yes a few cars decide to go to Camden rather than Kings Cross rather late in the day but not many at all, the cyclists are simply in the wrong bloody lane

I think they jump because they can mostly

watch out for me when the weather gets good enough for the cyclechat jerseys, wrecked old Scott and a lurid nightvision jacket is me, heading to Camden through that junction at about 8.20ish

cars jumping lights is just as frowned upon surely, more so by far

 

[Cab]

Sorry. I'll rephrase that. You've said why you think it won't make a difference.

(rest cut, as its just pointless)

Nope, I gave as evidence that blitzes haven't worked in the past, reasoning as to why I believe such don't work, parallels that also don't work, and suggestions for what I believe would work. You, in return, have constructed in your mind a fictional account of your own to respond to rather than directly respond to points put forward.

 

[CotterPin]

yep cotter, that's the one and I don't agree with that justification, they'll be the same people that jumped all the earlier lights, I get into the right lane as early as necessary, easy, christ knows what goes through the mind of the people that start on the left and cross the lane to get onto the Camden Road, see that every day and it's dangerous and relies on the drivers' goodwill, riders like that shouldn't do junctions like that

yes a few cars decide to go to Camden rather than Kings Cross rather late in the day but not many at all, the cyclists are simply in the wrong bloody lane

I think they jump because they can mostly

watch out for me when the weather gets good enough for the cyclechat jerseys, wrecked old Scott and a lurid nightvision jacket is me, heading to Camden through that junction at about 8.20ish

cars jumping lights is just as frowned upon surely, more so by far

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, Tynan

As I said I am not condoning their behaviour and chances are some of them are serial rljers who give it no thought at all. But having crossed that junction myself on many a occasion it can be one hell of a hairy experience suddenly realising that the car next to you is trying to swing across your path, even when you are holding your lane.

For a newbie cyclist who has had that experience, jumping the lights could be perceived to be the easy option, especially when they see someone else do it. Regrettably we know that it definitely ain't and could result in even worse consequences for the cyclist.

I do that junction every day usually a little later than you (I am rubbish at getting out of bed in the morning!) I am on Fuji Track bike (freewheel as I am too much of wimp to try fixed ) and usually wear an Altura jacket.

 

[Cab]

The fact (yes, fact) remains that no-one should be jumping red lights. You don't need evidence for that.

And so it follows that the people who do have no argument against being caught, nor the resources used, nor the resources not used on others. But that's irrelevant really, because it's pandering to the silly "look!! over there!!!" argument.

And once again you're waving a straw man in the air before beating it senseless. I've said quite clearly that I don't approve of red light jumping, that I'm more than happy for cyclists who are caught doing so to be punished. You also know full well that the stats don't back up the claim that red light jumping by cyclists is a major cause of accidents (nor is being safer by red light jumping a valid claim), because you've been involved in debates that went on and on based on those stats. Therefore the claim that practically any other kind of law breaking that is more directly responsible for causing harm is a more appropriate target for expending resources is valid, providing you believe that resources should be used where they can most effectively prevent harm. You do believe that, don't you?

You really need to see the bigger picture Cab. If you're going to moan about the resources used in this then you need to know what they are, in proper comparison to other resources.

No, I really don't need to know or comment on that; the fact is that with finite resources, targeting any specifically on something that is annoying but not (demonstrably) generally harmful is inappropriate.

If there is data suggesting that there are specific locations that buck this, where RLJing cyclists are causing harm, then the argument changes. If there is not, then this is not a good way to spend resources.

I anticipate that when you do this (as if), along with the necessary consideration of all the positives and negatives, you'll see that proportionally resources are appropriate.

You mean, I'll agree that some of a finite pool of resources should be spent on something that is not demonstrably (or even likely) going to work, that doesn't tackle a problem causing real harm, when similar policies not accompanied by any kind of public re-education have similarly not worked? I don't think so, not while other areas of police work remain so under resourced.

 

[02GF74]

I stop at red lights, just makes sense to me not to put myself in potential danger and/or p*ss off motorists and other road users.

hmmmm I find the exact opposite - it is safest to go over crossroads when the traffic is stopped by red lights. (obviously that is after checking there is nothing coming from the sides).

 

[User482]

hmmmm I find the exact opposite - it is safest to go over crossroads when the traffic is stopped by red lights. (obviously that is after checking there is nothing coming from the sides).

Not so. You hack off the car driver that was behind you, who will then attempt to run you down.

 

[domtyler]

Not so. You hack off the car driver that was behind you, who will then attempt to run you down.

 

[BentMikey]

hmmmm I find the exact opposite - it is safest to go over crossroads when the traffic is stopped by red lights. (obviously that is after checking there is nothing coming from the sides).

Not really, no. If you're looking to be safer, then go across with the green, legally. Best of all, get yourself in primary position behind the first or second car in the queue.

 

[User169]

Not so. You hack off the car driver that was behind you, who will then attempt to run you down.

I rather suspect that if someone is prepared deliberately to run a cyclist down, running red lights is neither here nor there.